Saturday, January 4, 2014

I'm certainly on board with Greg Sargent's comments this week that the spin over the first few days of ACA exchange plans kicking in doesn't matter.

As far as what does matter on this holiday week...I'm sort of thinking that Kerry's continuing press on Israel/Palestine might matter. How, I'm not sure. And perhaps it doesn't really...very hard to tell. But I'll go with that one.

Your disparagement of the "surge" proves that people will interpret data to fit their preconceived notions. Immediately after the surge we controlled Fallujah, now, 6 years later, and after a complete withdraw, they do. Can you explain your interpretation?

I agree with Conrad. The outreach strategy, which coincided with the surge, is something Iraq could look at and emulate. The gains from that policy and the surge weren't going to stay permanent if the Iraqi government became to sectarian and undermined the progress.

Although I understand that the decision was made earlier, I think the onset of marijuana legalization in CO could be a turning point. It will be hard to maintain prohibition in the rest of the country over a product that's legal to buy in some parts. In turn, the inanity of fighting a war on weed could lead to collapsing support for the war on drugs in general. When corporations as big as airlines -- Spirit Air, specifically -- are already promoting flights to CO with legal marijuana as the implied inducement, normalization finally seems near at hand. Happy new year, everyone!

Well, the fact that ACA went into effect this week will probably turn out to be the most significant event in the longterm, rivaled perhaps by legalization in CO.

As for what matters for the future, Kerry's efforts in the Mideast but also the recognition in a NY Times story that he has reoriented the State Department towards efforts addressing climate crisis, to the point of requiring it to be part of the conversation with other nations every time. Interesting that only time will tell on all of these. But then it's the first week of the year.

I'll go with the NY Times Editorial supporting clemency for Edward Snowden. Even among civil libertarians in Congress, there has been little support for Snowden -- hopefully this will help change that.

The bigger issue is that punishing whistleblowers, even with reduced charges (as some of Snowden's supporters have suggested), would be enough to dissuade most of them. The average person with a family to support would be destroyed by simply losing his or her job and being subjected to prosecution. And since just about any misdeeds will seem petty next to Snowden's revelations, why would any potential wistleblower be sure that anyone would even care if he or she were punished? This applies equally, if not more, to those in the private sector. The persecution of Snowden has already done much to compromise transparency, good government and corporate responsibility in the US for many years to come.